Global Warming - A lot of hot air

[Dieselman]

I suspect all the papers are quoting the same reason.
In 1997 there were massive peat fires in indonesia which had a serious impact on Co2 and....(glojo, take note.. )....'climate change'

This caused a massive spike in the Co2 readings which we still haven't surpassed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2.recent.ch.png

And this year we are experiencing the effects of La-Nina which is cooling things a bit.

Sorry to be boring and I know we've been here before......temperatures have risen since 1998 and some of the hottest temperatures recorded are in the last decade.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

 

[glojo]

Sorry to be boring and I know we've been here before......temperatures have risen since 1998 and some of the hottest temperatures recorded are in the last decade.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

I think we could throw figures at each other until the cows come home but I will never be convinced that last year was warmer than the previous year, and we are kidding ourselves if we think any summer in the last decade here in the UK comapred to the one of 1976!

I reckon newspapers cherry pick certain figures and then try to fit them to the story?

The Telegraph must be right when it claims temeratures are not rising!

Going up

Ade
Is it right that as the Atlantic gets warmer, this will effect the Gulf Stream, which will then effect our climate by making our island colder!!

regards
John the very confused

 

[hawk20]

Who were the telegraph quoting?

It seems most papers don't get beyond the first skin of the onion, its the same opinions being recycled.

Anyone recommend any books?

Ade

The recent book by Nigel Lawson is well worth a read.

Here is just a snippet from Lawson’s thought provoking book: -
First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.
The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - part of Britain's Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy - has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.
The centre now officially expects global warming to resume at some point between 2009 and 2014.
Maybe it will. But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world's temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from "settled".
• AN Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming by Nigel Lawson is published by Duckworth on April 10 at £9.99. To order a copy (p&p free), call 0845 606 4206.

For an article by him summarising his arguments see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374 &in_page_id=1770

And if proof were needed that there is as yet no concensus on man’s role in climate change see the US senate report . Devastating.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

 

[grober]

Who were the telegraph quoting?

It seems most papers don't get beyond the first skin of the onion, its the same opinions being recycled.

Anyone recommend any books?

Ade

Try this:- The Rough Guide to Climate Change (Paperback)
by Robert Henson of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
buy it here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Cha...ooks&qid=1211412110&sr=1-1&tag=amazon0e9db-21

 

[TonyVianoAmbiente]

Try this:- The Rough Guide to Climate Change (Paperback)
by Robert Henson of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
buy it here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Cha...ooks&qid=1211412110&sr=1-1&tag=amazon0e9db-21

But will any of the sceptics buy and read such a book, when Jeremy Clarkson tells them what they want to hear, for nothing?

What is as clear as can be from this "discussion" is that a lot of people don't want to know about climate change. So they just deny it, or selectively listen to people who tell them it isn't a problem.

 

[Mr E]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.....

You can spin the numbers for the last decade in two (or more) ways....

Draw an elongated hump on a piece of paper, with the start and end points at the same level. Label one "1997" and the other "2007". That is the shape over the last 10 years. Therefore has the climate warmed or not?

Except that you need to take into account such things as La Nina / El Nino, solar energy output, NAO oscillations, etc, etc, etc.

You also need to compare over a much longer timeframe - and this is decades, not years. 07 was cooler than 06 (in the UK) - therefore is the correct conclusion that the climate is not warming.

Unfortunately this is an incredibly complex area of study and few have a real grasp of what is actually happening. Knee-jerk reactions by politicians, the media and people on the street do not take into account the real science and study that is looking into this.

Look at the axe that any commentator has to grind - whether they be a motoring enthusiast, conspiracy theorist, new age hippy, greenie, politician, etc - before jumping to conclusions. There are lots of "I believe / don;t believe" comments to be heard, but little real, informed, unbiased debate. It might appear to be boring but for a change don't believe what everyone else dishes up for your consumption - go out and do the reading of those qualified to make judgements. It's nice to see some eager to find out more.

 

[Mr E]

But will any of the sceptics buy and read such a book, when Jeremy Clarkson tells them what they want to hear, for nothing?

What is as clear as can be from this "discussion" is that a lot of people don't want to know about climate change. So they just deny it, or selectively listen to people who tell them it isn't a problem.

And on the other hand, there are plenty on the other side of the fence unwilling to enter into proper, constructive, informed and reasoned debate either.

 

[hawk20]

But will any of the sceptics buy and read such a book, when Jeremy Clarkson tells them what they want to hear, for nothing?

What is as clear as can be from this "discussion" is that a lot of people don't want to know about climate change. So they just deny it, or selectively listen to people who tell them it isn't a problem.

More important: will you be reading Nigel Lawson's book? or the Senate Hearing (see link above)? Or do you just read what you want to hear. NONE of us knows the full answer. Few of us are climatologists and most of them admit this is a very tricky subject where we know far less than we would like to know. We are all guessing/judging/estimating on the basis of much imperfect information. When the scientists are all agreed or largely so, you will be able to fairly make such pompous remarks. But not yet while we are all doing our best to draw conclusions from inadequate and uncertain information.

 

[hawk20]

It might appear to be boring but for a change don't believe what everyone else dishes up for your consumption - go out and do the reading of those qualified to make judgements. It's nice to see some eager to find out more.

I agree with much of your thoughtful posting. But laymen can really not get very far by reading the so called 'experts' as there are extremely highly qualified people on both sides of the debate. Some highly reputable scientists think there have possibly been 50 ice ages -not one as we once thought. And that climate varies enormously over time even without mankind doing anything harmful. It is inevitably going to be exceedingly difficult to draw firm conclusions in such a complex and highly variable world.

 

[Mr E]

I agree with much of your thoughtful posting. But laymen can really not get very far by reading the so called 'experts' as there are extremely highly qualified people on both sides of the debate. Some highly reputable scientists think there have possibly been 50 ice ages -not one as we once thought. And that climate varies enormously over time even without mankind doing anything harmful. It is inevitably going to be exceedingly difficult to draw firm conclusions in such a complex and highly variable world.

Very true - but there are some simple tactics that you can employ:

Use recognised, peer-reviewed literature sources - not books and papers bandied about by all parties.

Check the background of authors - where do they work / study, what else have the published.

Read the summary of the material - that'll give you the conclusions that are the main thrust of the paper.

Read stuff from both sides of the argument.
​

I'm lucky (if you can call me that) that I'm getting paid to do just this at the moment at an industry level - is there benefit in the automotive industry looking at alternative propulsion and energy sources yet, when should they do this, and how much money should they be spending on it? I'm not a climate expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I get enough of the argument to put a balanced argument across. And there is enough info out there that would raise plenty of eyebrows on both sides if only they were open enough.

I've obviously got to put together an opinion on various aspects of this, but that opinion has to be back up by better sources than the news media, tv pundits and politicians. It's not that hard - I'm testing it by seeing if I can explain the argument to my 13-year old son - but the effort is in finding the decent, reliable sources, not the scaremongers (of either side).

Still a fair way to go - delivery is due in Q4 of this year - and I'll see what I'm able to share, if anyone is interested.

 

[Mr E]

Is it right that as the Atlantic gets warmer, this will effect the Gulf Stream, which will then effect our climate by making our island colder!!

That seems to be one of the effects. The North Atlantic conveyor keeps us warm (and wet) compared to other countries of the same latitude. So if that ever packed up, we'd notice it being substantially cooler.

 

[Dieselman]

Still a fair way to go - delivery is due in Q4 of this year - and I'll see what I'm able to share, if anyone is interested.

I am.

The more impartial and accurate the more I am interested.

 

[glojo]

I am.

The more impartial and accurate the more I am interested.

I guarantee at least one of the sides of the debate will disagree with any conclusion but hopefully not the one that has asked Mr E for his assessment.

Regards
John

 

[Colin_b]

For what its worth I'm unsure about our effect on climate change. There does appear to be substantial evidence that it is happening, from what I can see.

There is also data that casts some doubt on that evidence, and makes it far from simple in my mind.

The one thing that does make me somewhat sceptical about MMGW is the actions of governments. They say it is the greatest threat to mankind, but fail to act accordingly. Yes, they put small (relatively) taxes on cars, flying and industry. They are promoting low energy lightbulbs and similar programmes.

If MMGW was truly a bigger threat than AIDS, malaria, food shortages and overpopulation, then surely radical action is seriously overdue.

Stop burning coal and gas for electricity, heating and transport, for example, and replace with nuclear, wind and wave generation. Difficult and expensive to do, sure.

Governments are not leading by example, and seem rather too interested in revenue raising, it appears to me. I'll take MMGW as seriously as their actions, rather than just their words.

 

[kikkthecat]

For what its worth I'm unsure about our effect on climate change. There does appear to be substantial evidence that it is happening, from what I can see.

There is also data that casts some doubt on that evidence, and makes it far from simple in my mind.

The one thing that does make me somewhat sceptical about MMGW is the actions of governments. They say it is the greatest threat to mankind, but fail to act accordingly .

And that is exactly why so many people are so sceptical about climate change. We're constantly told it's going to destroy the world as we know it and the best solution we're given is a few bob on our tax bill... Gee thanks fellas.
As long as I can go to Tescos and buy green beans FLOWN IN from Kenya and fruit FLOWN IN from Peru how am I expected to believe that using my car to do so is causing all the problems ? Of course there are so many sceptics, that's because there are so many hypocrites in charge.

 

[neilrr]

I'm beginning to think there may be something in this climate change after all. Four months ago it was very cold and now it's quite warm.

 

[hawk20]

Very true - but there are some simple tactics that you can employ:
Use recognised, peer-reviewed literature sources - not books and papers bandied about by all parties.


Check the background of authors - where do they work / study, what else have the published.


Read the summary of the material - that'll give you the conclusions that are the main thrust of the paper.


Read stuff from both sides of the argument.


.

Yes but the layman does not need to do all that. All that is needed is: -

1. To know that some very powerful brains are now on both sides of the argument.

2. The experts do not yet have enough information to agree on man's role in climate change.

3. The jury is out. Sensible people will wait till the scientists know a lot more than they do now and have much firmer agreement on the nature and causes of the problem.

 

[TonyVianoAmbiente]

Current predictions of climate change don't include the effects of positive feedback, notably in the polar regions. Positive feedback is where climate change causes something that feeds back into the climate system making warming even worse.

The reason why feedbacks haven't yet been modelled, and are therefore not included in the predictions, is that less is understood about them than other mechanisms that contribute to climate change. A lot of research is being done, and greater understanding will lead to better and more reliable predictions.

What worries me greatly is that all the changes in the polar regions appear to be very much faster and a lot more severe than have been allowed for in the global models. Here is yet another example, from the Canadian Arctic:
Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice

Of course the naysayers will say it doesn't matter. Well they would, wouldn't they. There is no greater protection from the consequences of climate change than ignorance (wilful or otherwise) and selective blindness. But they will be dead long before the effects of climate change hit their children, their grandchildren and especially their great grandchildren. So why should they care?

 

[Colin_b]

Current predictions of climate change don't include the effects of positive feedback, notably in the polar regions. Positive feedback is where climate change causes something that feeds back into the climate system making warming even worse.

The reason why feedbacks haven't yet been modelled, and are therefore not included in the predictions, is that less is understood about them than other mechanisms that contribute to climate change. A lot of research is being done, and greater understanding will lead to better and more reliable predictions.

What worries me greatly is that all the changes in the polar regions appear to be very much faster and a lot more severe than have been allowed for in the global models. Here is yet another example, from the Canadian Arctic:
Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice

Of course the naysayers will say it doesn't matter. Well they would, wouldn't they. There is no greater protection from the consequences of climate change than ignorance (wilful or otherwise) and selective blindness. But they will be dead long before the effects of climate change hit their children, their grandchildren and especially their great grandchildren. So why should they care?

What, exactly, will be the effects of climate change that will hit my children, grandchildren and following?

 

[Gucci]

What, exactly, will be the effects of climate change that will hit my children, grandchildren and following?

Nothing. We'd have run out of fuel in a couple of years